Sport Bikes banner

61 - 80 of 83 Posts

·
Gonna go far on my GSX-R!
Joined
·
2,238 Posts
kman458 said:
If they try and solve an actual problem then they might offend someone that might keep them from getting elected.
God forbid we offend anyone for the sake of making any real progress, that just wouldn't be right.
 

·
Track Trash
Joined
·
1,313 Posts
jim schmidt said:
Back to the subject: The Democratic Party is the party of regular middle class people. The Republican Party represents bitter and selfish people.
FUCK YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Put that in your book!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
516 Posts
ZRX Mike said:
Democrats are for the hard working man!
Republicans are for the big business.
Might as well further the thread hijacking here...and I'll lay down a disclaimer here as I consider myself a libertarian, so I get the fun of commenting on both.

Let's focus on Republicans first..."[they] are for big business." Is this a bad thing? If I might ask, what do you do for a living Mike? Are you self-employed, or do you work for somebody else? Doesn't really matter as you will ALWAYS (unless you live in a yurt in the Urals) being dealing in some way, shape, or form with big business. You may type on a computer consisting of parts from Intel, you've been posting on a site which potentially uses something from Oracle, you drive a car made by a major automaker or you ride a bike manufactured by a major motorcycle manufacturer, which is in turn made with parts from other large businesses, and so on. So what is "supporting big business" consist of? Tax breaks, job incentives, re-patriation laws for profits made on foreign soil...the list goes on. How are these hurting you, the supposed "working stiff"? If you're a small employer, tax breaks for big corporations hurt you because you're not big enough to take advantage of them, or don't qualify because your sales or personnel numbers don't crease the qualification line. I know, my family has been there. But it essence, I'd rather see the government start to remove things like graduated income taxes, gross import taxes, etc., which hurt the means of trade. My hope is that once enacted stuff like this will trickle down to small businesses. So if Congress gives a tax break to corporations, more power to them. Does it help the working stiff? Sure does. You may not be a proponent of "trickle down" economics, but the math works. By allowing business to focus on the generation of profits, you will in turn generally grow, employ more people, etc. Will you outsource? Possibly. Sometimes it makes sense, and other times it doesn't. Outsourcing stinks if you're losing your job, but every time you shop at Wal-Mart you support it. Most people who decry outsourcing are the same people buying the majority of the outsourced products...go figure.

What do Republicans need to get off of? Faith-based initiatives are one. I realize that country was founded on Christian principles, but there is a point where religion and politics need to take a breather...abortion being the major issue.

That's just a crack in the nut for Republicans; respond and I'll do so in turn.

Now, onto Democrats..."[they] are for the hard working man!" This is a down-right hilarious comment. First off, what's your definition of a "hard-working" man? Manual labor? 40-hour weeks maybe? Traditional blue-collar job? I've got news for you; I know a lot of executives and professionals, myself included, who put in longer days than most. We sacrifice our personal lives, family lives, etc., to a company or our own businesses. And we do it gladly. Why? Many of us actually like to work, and frankly, most of us like to make $$$. Who doesn't? So please lay off the old adage of Republicans being white-collar prissies who sit in an office all day long and do little of real value. People are and should be employed and paid for their WORTH...and to be honest, it's the economy which sets the value on that worth.

So what are Democrats looking to support that helps the everyday joe? More social programs, homosexual unions/marriage and the associated benefits, universal healthcare, graduated tax structures, better environmental standards...feel free to add here. Do social programs work? Yes, they do...but only if they are used as intended. Welfare was/is supposed to be for temporary relief; it is not meant to be a lifestyle. So while I believe in its existence, it requires some serious re-structuring. Homosexual unions/marriage...I'm up in the air on this one. Personally, I don't care what you do in your own home. But when you start to add in things like associated benefits and the like, I see that being a potential economic detriment. For instance, the increased benefits cost in hospitalization has the potential to be a real hard-hitter. Next, universal healthcare? Sorry, but like anything else healthcare is a priveledge and NOT a right. Life, liberty, & personal property...those are rights guaranteed to you. But nothing in the Constitution says it's Uncle Sam's job/responsibility to take care of you. Libertarian principle is one of personal responsibility. You usually find that social responsibility comes as a result of the practice of this (read: Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith). Graduated tax structures? Me, I say hit everyone with a flat tax. It thus taxes everyone at an EQUITABLE level: 25% of my wealth, and 25% of yours. Why should someone who has been successful be summarily penalized for being so? Environmental standards require one to weigh the pros and cons. You have to realize that the more stringent you make these, without proper economic incentives, the more likely companies will be to move off-shore. So it's give and take. You can have them, but you have to be willing to work with businesses for gradual implementation.

Please feel free to weigh-in and comment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,622 Posts
Triple_Z said:
Let's focus on Republicans first..."[they] are for big business." Is this a bad thing? If I might ask, what do you do for a living Mike? Are you self-employed, or do you work for somebody else? Doesn't really matter as you will ALWAYS (unless you live in a yurt in the Urals) being dealing in some way, shape, or form with big business. You may type on a computer consisting of parts from Intel, you've been posting on a site which potentially uses something from Oracle, you drive a car made by a major automaker or you ride a bike manufactured by a major motorcycle manufacturer, which is in turn made with parts from other large businesses, and so on. So what is "supporting big business" consist of? Tax breaks, job incentives, re-patriation laws for profits made on foreign soil...the list goes on. How are these hurting you, the supposed "working stiff"? If you're a small employer, tax breaks for big corporations hurt you because you're not big enough to take advantage of them, or don't qualify because your sales or personnel numbers don't crease the qualification line. I know, my family has been there. But it essence, I'd rather see the government start to remove things like graduated income taxes, gross import taxes, etc., which hurt the means of trade. My hope is that once enacted stuff like this will trickle down to small businesses. So if Congress gives a tax break to corporations, more power to them. Does it help the working stiff? Sure does. You may not be a proponent of "trickle down" economics, but the math works. By allowing business to focus on the generation of profits, you will in turn generally grow, employ more people, etc. Will you outsource? Possibly. Sometimes it makes sense, and other times it doesn't. Outsourcing stinks if you're losing your job, but every time you shop at Wal-Mart you support it. Most people who decry outsourcing are the same people buying the majority of the outsourced products...go figure.

Answer, Yes it is a bad thing. When corporations use this influence to squeeze every last drop of profit out, at the expense of the American economy. For instance, the mass exodus of jobs out of the US. The creation of a new, poorer class of American, at the burden of the taxpayer, hence the Maryland law against WalMart. The new bankruptcy laws that were made for the credit card companies. Who did it hit the worst? Small business.

Trickle down has never produced any benefits. The proponents of it have never produced a strong economy. If you are going to point to Reagan, I will point to his second term. This is where his influence would be felt, as opposed to the outgoing president's. In this case, trickle down failed.

Triple_Z said:
What do Republicans need to get off of? Faith-based initiatives are one. I realize that country was founded on Christian principles, but there is a point where religion and politics need to take a breather...abortion being the major issue.

That's just a crack in the nut for Republicans; respond and I'll do so in turn.
They will be intertwined.

Triple_Z said:
Now, onto Democrats..."[they] are for the hard working man!" This is a down-right hilarious comment. First off, what's your definition of a "hard-working" man? Manual labor? 40-hour weeks maybe? Traditional blue-collar job? I've got news for you; I know a lot of executives and professionals, myself included, who put in longer days than most. We sacrifice our personal lives, family lives, etc., to a company or our own businesses. And we do it gladly. Why? Many of us actually like to work, and frankly, most of us like to make $$$. Who doesn't? So please lay off the old adage of Republicans being white-collar prissies who sit in an office all day long and do little of real value. People are and should be employed and paid for their WORTH...and to be honest, it's the economy which sets the value on that worth.
I am also an executive and I find it a little mendacious that you would compare a white collar job to a blue collar job. I work long hours, but I've worked blue collar through college and I don't think my job is anywhere near that stress level. Work at UPS as a loader for one shift and then complain about how hard the job is.

Not to mention that there HAVE to be blue collar workers in any economy. Belittling their value to a healthy economy is not conducive to economic strength. A strong economy is strong on all fronts and levels.


Triple_Z said:
So what are Democrats looking to support that helps the everyday joe? More social programs, homosexual unions/marriage and the associated benefits, universal healthcare, graduated tax structures, better environmental standards...feel free to add here. Do social programs work? Yes, they do...but only if they are used as intended. Welfare was/is supposed to be for temporary relief; it is not meant to be a lifestyle. So while I believe in its existence, it requires some serious re-structuring. Homosexual unions/marriage...I'm up in the air on this one. Personally, I don't care what you do in your own home. But when you start to add in things like associated benefits and the like, I see that being a potential economic detriment. For instance, the increased benefits cost in hospitalization has the potential to be a real hard-hitter. Next, universal healthcare? Sorry, but like anything else healthcare is a priveledge and NOT a right. Life, liberty, & personal property...those are rights guaranteed to you. But nothing in the Constitution says it's Uncle Sam's job/responsibility to take care of you. Libertarian principle is one of personal responsibility. You usually find that social responsibility comes as a result of the practice of this (read: Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith). Graduated tax structures? Me, I say hit everyone with a flat tax. It thus taxes everyone at an EQUITABLE level: 25% of my wealth, and 25% of yours. Why should someone who has been successful be summarily penalized for being so? Environmental standards require one to weigh the pros and cons. You have to realize that the more stringent you make these, without proper economic incentives, the more likely companies will be to move off-shore. So it's give and take. You can have them, but you have to be willing to work with businesses for gradual implementation.
For all of the people who think welfare is "country clubbing" it, it's not. Most welfare recipients wouldn't choose welfare as a lifestyle.

If gays pay the same amount for benefits, they should enjoy equal footing. What increased healthcare costs are you speaking of?

You make more, you should pay more in taxes. Graduated taxes work fine. I think that a strong economy should work at all levels. My company's profitability is increased when there is more work to do. More spending, healthier lower and middle class consumers mean more profits for my company.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,900 Posts
L8 Braker said:
And yet they do....Evidenced by hundreds of thousands on welfare that are on their 5th generation of families in the program...
I thought changes to welfare several years ago placed limits on the time period. Do you have any proof of "hundreds of thousands" on their "5th generation" of families in the program?

Welfare was on the decline between 1993 and 2000 (ref: US DHHS)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,622 Posts
L8 Braker said:
And yet they do....Evidenced by hundreds of thousands on welfare that are on their 5th generation of families in the program...
Ok, let's say you live in an area that's got a high percentage of welfare families.

a. What are the chances you'll have adequate education?

b. What are the chances of having a decent place for you to work at locally?

c. What are the chances that you'd have adequate chances to move ahead?

Hard to get ahead if you're stepping up to the plate with 2 strikes and a broken bat.
 

·
mmm mmm good...
Joined
·
6,958 Posts
BusaDave said:
I thought changes to welfare several years ago placed limits on the time period. Do you have any proof of "hundreds of thousands" on their "5th generation" of families in the program?

Welfare was on the decline between 1993 and 2000 (ref: US DHHS)
That where I'm from dude. My mother is a teacher, says that 83% of the children are on lunch assistance programs, i.e welfare families. Most troubling is the fact that they keep popping out kids to increase that check. Then they spend it on themselves and the kid ends up selling/doing drugs to support him/herself. The best job they have, since they can't afford car insurance is the local market just to get free cigarettes.
 

·
mmm mmm good...
Joined
·
6,958 Posts
Fargin_Bastige said:
Ok, let's say you live in an area that's got a high percentage of welfare families.

a. What are the chances you'll have adequate education?

b. What are the chances of having a decent place for you to work at locally?

c. What are the chances that you'd have adequate chances to move ahead?

Hard to get ahead if you're stepping up to the plate with 2 strikes and a broken bat.
True, but oyu could still bunt.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,633 Posts
Fargin_Bastige said:
Ok, let's say you live in an area that's got a high percentage of welfare families.

a. What are the chances you'll have adequate education?

b. What are the chances of having a decent place for you to work at locally?

c. What are the chances that you'd have adequate chances to move ahead?

Hard to get ahead if you're stepping up to the plate with 2 strikes and a broken bat.
Fargin, I agree with you so much in this statement...It is the biggest paradox of society...

I'm a nurse and work in the busiest ER in the state of Florida...We saw almost 130,000 last year...And the upper percentage of people we see are the ones we mention...No healthcare, education, etc...And my co workers, doctors included, agree there is no answer to this question, other than they need to find a way...But it's like your analagy...How can they find get on base with a broken bat?....They really don't stand a chance to break the cycle of poverty because it's all they see, and no one is around to teach them any differently...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,622 Posts
Napalm said:
Why? Is there any logical reason why person A should pay a higher percentage than Person B?
In order to mantain an economy, in which you use more if you're rich, you should pay more.

You live in a more expensive house, your school districts are better and pay more.

You use more, you pay more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
516 Posts
Fargin_Bastige said:
Answer, Yes it is a bad thing. When corporations use this influence to squeeze every last drop of profit out, at the expense of the American economy. For instance, the mass exodus of jobs out of the US. The creation of a new, poorer class of American, at the burden of the taxpayer, hence the Maryland law against WalMart. The new bankruptcy laws that were made for the credit card companies. Who did it hit the worst? Small business.
Well, let's focus first on "at the expense of the American economy". Being an American manufacturer, I think it's safe to say I fully comprehend the effects of outsourcing. However, does it have its place? Yes. For instance, my company has two plants in Wisconsin and a third in Mexico. Why does the plant exist in Mexico? Because for fully designed/developed product lines, it's cheaper to make the product there. Thus we generate more profits as a result. What do we do in turn? We re-invest those profits domestically to build and develop new products and manufacturing lines. As those matriculate, we move them down to Mexico and the cycle continues. It is also becoming a necessity to outsource. A large portion of our business is automotive-related. Every time GM/Ford/Chrysler/Toyota talks about downsizing or cutbacks, you have to realize that crap rolls down hills. The first people to hear about cost reductions are your Tier 1 suppliers (like me). So, for us, outsourcing becomes a necessity to maintain an economically viable company. Don't like it? Then tell the American consumer not to complain about the high cost of goods. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The American consumer has to realize that in order to fund things like healthcare and pensions, it all comes at a cost. You have to be willing to buy into a system which supports your way of life. Businesses are in business to make profits...PERIOD. They are not there to supply social welfare, etc. That's an added bonus which comes from a successful company. Shoving more regulations down the throats of business makes them even more likely to jump ship. The easiest analogy for starting and running a business is playing the stock market. If the odds aren't good on a product, do you invest in it? Unless you've got money to blow on a long shot, probably not. Business is the same way. If the government is going to tell me when and how much profit I can make, and how I have to run my organization, then I'm either not going to go into business, or I'm not going to do it on these shores...not unless I'm standing to make a gain on my investment.

Fargin_Bastige said:
Trickle down has never produced any benefits. The proponents of it have never produced a strong economy.
Manufacturing companies generally lead recessions. We have for years. The recession which reached it's peak in 2001 (so the numbers say) was experienced by many of us as early as 2000. So, GW inherits a dwindling economy due to a stock bubble...primarily based on companies with estimated worth and not actual value. Anyways, after a few "bad" tax cuts, we see our economy climbing again. Do I think that the tax cuts have helped to spur investment and the growth we're currently seeing? Yes, I do. So yes, I see trickle down being a beneficial economic concept.

Fargin_Bastige said:
I am also an executive and I find it a little mendacious that you would compare a white collar job to a blue collar job. I work long hours, but I've worked blue collar through college and I don't think my job is anywhere near that stress level. Work at UPS as a loader for one shift and then complain about how hard the job is.
I'm downplaying blue collar jobs? Hell no. And I don't think anything I've said indicates that. For the record, I started as a tool & die maker (machinist basically) back in high school prior to even going to college. I've worked grimier jobs than loading trucks...if you've ever cleaned the sludge from large EDM tanks, we can talk. And to be honest, my job is more stressful now. I'm not worrying about whether or not I took an extra 0.001" off of a bar of stock; now I worry about meeting the boss's productivity goals within the budgeted cost so that I don't have to lay people off. If I make a mistake on a project or machine budget, and the company loses a buttload of $$$, that money has to be regained from somewhere. My point is simple: blue collar or white collar does NOT determine whether or not you are one of the "working men" of the country. If you get up and do your job, you are a working person.

Fargin_Bastige said:
Not to mention that there HAVE to be blue collar workers in any economy. Belittling their value to a healthy economy is not conducive to economic strength. A strong economy is strong on all fronts and levels.
I think my above statement pretty much answers this one. I didn't discriminate between classes, nor do I. My parents didn't grow up wealthy; they were self-made through hard work and education. I believe in the same.

Fargin_Bastige said:
For all of the people who think welfare is "country clubbing" it, it's not. Most welfare recipients wouldn't choose welfare as a lifestyle.
Never said it was. But I also believe it should be "temporary". While I'm not a Mormon, I think that they do have an interesting concept with regards to work. They insist that everybody does it. There is always something that you can do to benefit society. The blind and handicapped learn to weave brooms. Lowly educated workers can find satisfying work in farming. We have a great local service, Kandu, which is a staffing agency for people with a wide variety of handicaps (mental retardation to name one). While they can't do every task, they are great for basic sorting operations and whatnot. It's organizations like this that prove the worth in people. Temporary relief while you look for a job is one thing. Having multiple children while on the dole, and expecting the government to pick up the tab, is another. If the taxpayers are going to pay for food, housing, healthcare, then there needs to be a return on said investment, namely said person or family returning to be productive people again.

Fargin_Bastige said:
If gays pay the same amount for benefits, they should enjoy equal footing. What increased healthcare costs are you speaking of?
I think I may not have stated this one clearly, or you took it out of context. Pay for the same benefits, and receive the same, yes. I'm in agreement. It's when you start looking at things like retirement plans, Social Security survivor benefits, and family healthplans (one individual works while the company picks up the tab for family plan) are what I was referring to. Although, as you see an increase in individuals providing for everything beyond single coverage, the family healthcare plan would become a null point. As Social Security will be insolvent in a decade or so, I guess the same goes there. The cost of benefits? I guess that all depends on where insurance companies decide to go. As I said before, I'm up in the air on this one.

Fargin_Bastige said:
You make more, you should pay more in taxes. Graduated taxes work fine. I think that a strong economy should work at all levels. My company's profitability is increased when there is more work to do. More spending, healthier lower and middle class consumers mean more profits for my company.
They may, but I tend to look at business and economic models from a "hands-off" concept. Why should I pay more? Because I was more successful? Because maybe I was lucky, or I worked harder? Graduated income taxes goal is the redistribution of wealth. There was an Marilyn vos Savant article years ago comparing the redistribution of wealth to slavery. It's a stretch, but it's an interesting analogy. If you are a proponent of taking from the fortunate to give to others without as much, without requiring said recipients to EARN that gift, then you are in essence making slaves of the people you took the money from (i.e. by forcing them to give up what was rightfully earned by them). Again, social responsibility is an interesting concept, one which has been studied for years. Smith found that when people were not forced to be socially responsible, they generally did humanitarian things. I guess I'm a naive idiot who believes in the generosity of people...in the right situation of couse.

Cheers!
:cheers
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
236 Posts
Anyone here will just argue after you post the thread - save yourself confusion and arguments along with wasted bandwidth and hard drive space.

ASK
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,622 Posts
Triple_Z said:
Well, let's focus first on "at the expense of the American economy". Being an American manufacturer, I think it's safe to say I fully comprehend the effects of outsourcing. However, does it have its place? Yes. For instance, my company has two plants in Wisconsin and a third in Mexico. Why does the plant exist in Mexico? Because for fully designed/developed product lines, it's cheaper to make the product there. Thus we generate more profits as a result. What do we do in turn? We re-invest those profits domestically to build and develop new products and manufacturing lines. As those matriculate, we move them down to Mexico and the cycle continues. It is also becoming a necessity to outsource. A large portion of our business is automotive-related. Every time GM/Ford/Chrysler/Toyota talks about downsizing or cutbacks, you have to realize that crap rolls down hills. The first people to hear about cost reductions are your Tier 1 suppliers (like me). So, for us, outsourcing becomes a necessity to maintain an economically viable company. Don't like it? Then tell the American consumer not to complain about the high cost of goods. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The American consumer has to realize that in order to fund things like healthcare and pensions, it all comes at a cost. You have to be willing to buy into a system which supports your way of life. Businesses are in business to make profits...PERIOD. They are not there to supply social welfare, etc. That's an added bonus which comes from a successful company. Shoving more regulations down the throats of business makes them even more likely to jump ship. The easiest analogy for starting and running a business is playing the stock market. If the odds aren't good on a product, do you invest in it? Unless you've got money to blow on a long shot, probably not. Business is the same way. If the government is going to tell me when and how much profit I can make, and how I have to run my organization, then I'm either not going to go into business, or I'm not going to do it on these shores...not unless I'm standing to make a gain on my investment.
I agree that Americans want everything cheap and don't see it's negative effects on the economy.

I also don't believe that an American company wouldn't just outsource anyway to increase profits. In my opinion screwing their client base out of jobs.


Triple_Z said:
Manufacturing companies generally lead recessions. We have for years. The recession which reached it's peak in 2001 (so the numbers say) was experienced by many of us as early as 2000. So, GW inherits a dwindling economy due to a stock bubble...primarily based on companies with estimated worth and not actual value. Anyways, after a few "bad" tax cuts, we see our economy climbing again. Do I think that the tax cuts have helped to spur investment and the growth we're currently seeing? Yes, I do. So yes, I see trickle down being a beneficial economic concept.
We can agree to disagree. In my opinion, businesses will generally take the break and use it to bolster profits, not jobs.

After running several studies on headcount and outsourcing, sadly, this is the way it will turn. In my opinion, eventually making our country financially weak, saddled with huge debt and with a larger poor population.



Triple_Z said:
I'm downplaying blue collar jobs? Hell no. And I don't think anything I've said indicates that. For the record, I started as a tool & die maker (machinist basically) back in high school prior to even going to college. I've worked grimier jobs than loading trucks...if you've ever cleaned the sludge from large EDM tanks, we can talk. And to be honest, my job is more stressful now. I'm not worrying about whether or not I took an extra 0.001" off of a bar of stock; now I worry about meeting the boss's productivity goals within the budgeted cost so that I don't have to lay people off. If I make a mistake on a project or machine budget, and the company loses a buttload of $$$, that money has to be regained from somewhere. My point is simple: blue collar or white collar does NOT determine whether or not you are one of the "working men" of the country. If you get up and do your job, you are a working person.
In my current role, if I make a mistake, half of the country's stock trades would disappear.

Still beats gray snot and wheezing from box loading.



Triple_Z said:
Never said it was. But I also believe it should be "temporary". While I'm not a Mormon, I think that they do have an interesting concept with regards to work. They insist that everybody does it. There is always something that you can do to benefit society. The blind and handicapped learn to weave brooms. Lowly educated workers can find satisfying work in farming. We have a great local service, Kandu, which is a staffing agency for people with a wide variety of handicaps (mental retardation to name one). While they can't do every task, they are great for basic sorting operations and whatnot. It's organizations like this that prove the worth in people. Temporary relief while you look for a job is one thing. Having multiple children while on the dole, and expecting the government to pick up the tab, is another. If the taxpayers are going to pay for food, housing, healthcare, then there needs to be a return on said investment, namely said person or family returning to be productive people again.
Poverty is self perpetuating.

In my opinion we need to stop giving benefits to breeders. That means everyone. No child tax break. If you have a kid, that's your issue.

We also need to invest in communities, not parts of them. Police, job training and bringing jobs to the community that are meaningful and skill producing.

Our school system blows. Since we started all children left behind, we have dropped in the world ranking.

Triple_Z said:
I think I may not have stated this one clearly, or you took it out of context. Pay for the same benefits, and receive the same, yes. I'm in agreement. It's when you start looking at things like retirement plans, Social Security survivor benefits, and family healthplans (one individual works while the company picks up the tab for family plan) are what I was referring to. Although, as you see an increase in individuals providing for everything beyond single coverage, the family healthcare plan would become a null point. As Social Security will be insolvent in a decade or so, I guess the same goes there. The cost of benefits? I guess that all depends on where insurance companies decide to go. As I said before, I'm up in the air on this one.[\QUOTE]
Again, just because they are same sex partners, they shouldn't suffer. They pay for benefits, they should be able to choose the beneficiaries.

As far as Soc Sec, in 5 years, we won't have to worry about that anyway.


Triple_Z said:
They may, but I tend to look at business and economic models from a "hands-off" concept. Why should I pay more? Because I was more successful? Because maybe I was lucky, or I worked harder? Graduated income taxes goal is the redistribution of wealth. There was an Marilyn vos Savant article years ago comparing the redistribution of wealth to slavery. It's a stretch, but it's an interesting analogy. If you are a proponent of taking from the fortunate to give to others without as much, without requiring said recipients to EARN that gift, then you are in essence making slaves of the people you took the money from (i.e. by forcing them to give up what was rightfully earned by them). Again, social responsibility is an interesting concept, one which has been studied for years. Smith found that when people were not forced to be socially responsible, they generally did humanitarian things. I guess I'm a naive idiot who believes in the generosity of people...in the right situation of couse.

Cheers!
:cheers
In my opinion, in order to have a strong economy, everyone needs to benefit. Why not taxe a poorer family less? They are still consumers and will put that money back into the economy.

That's just my humble opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,107 Posts
Fargin_Bastige said:
In order to mantain an economy, in which you use more if you're rich, you should pay more.

You live in a more expensive house, your school districts are better and pay more.

You use more, you pay more.

Excuse me if I am wrong but 10% of 10 million is far more than 10% of 50,000. How is it then, by your logic, that a flat tax isn't logical? The person who makes more and theoretically using more is paying more. Maybe we are just using the same words and understanding them differently, because in my mind a flat tax DOES take less tax dollars from poorer people.
 
61 - 80 of 83 Posts
Top